ABOUT COSMIC LOG

Quantum fluctuations in space, science, exploration and other cosmic fields... served up regularly by MSNBC.com science editor Alan Boyle since 2002.

Alan Boyle covers the physical sciences, anthropology, technological innovation and space science and exploration for MSNBC.com. He is a winner of the AAAS Science Journalism Award, the NASW Science-in-Society Award and other honors; a contributor to "A Field Guide for Science Writers"; and a member of the board of the Council for the Advancement of Science Writing.

Check out Boyle's biography or send a message to Cosmic Log via cosmiclog@msnbc.com.



Up close with Dr. Hawking

Posted: Tuesday, April 10, 2007 7:34 PM by Alan Boyle

World-famous cosmologist Stephen Hawking was in the Seattle spotlight Monday night to explain the big questions: Why does time seem to move always forward but never backward? Why does he think running time backwards the only way to solve the universe's biggest mystery? But the small questions can be just as intriguing: For example, how does Hawking “autograph” a book? When he composes a sentence on his gesture-controlled computer, does he blink or does he sneer?

Here are some insights into those questions, great and small, gleaned during a close encounter with Cambridge University's frail genius:


Kimberly Wright / Reuters file
Physicist Stephen Hawking uses an infrared sensor
mounted on his eyeglasses as part of a
computerized writing/speaking system.

The title of Hawking's advertised talk was "The History of the Universe Backwards," but he actually delivered two lectures - one looking back at his own career in physics, and another focusing on his latest theories about a "top-down" approach to cosmology.

The first talk touched on the milestones of his career: how he went into cosmology rather than particle physics, the subdiscipline du jour, because he marched to the beat of a different scientific drummer ... how he was diagnosed with a neurodegenerative disease, known as amyotrophic lateral sclerosis or ALS, while he was in graduate school ... and how, despite his increasing disability, he went on to plumb the theoretical depths of black holes and the big bang.

Hawking has gone back and forth about what happens to the things that are sucked into a black hole. At one time, he held that the "information" falling into the black hole is lost forever, but recently he has said that the contents of a black hole would leak out in the form of "Hawking radiation," until the black hole itself dissipates.

"Information is not lost, but it is not returned in a useful way," he said. "It is like burning an encyclopedia. Information is not lost, but it is very hard to read."

Speaking of encyclopedias, Hawking noted that his reversal caused him to lose a bet to a fellow physicist, with the payoff coming in the form of a baseball encyclopedia. "Maybe I should have just given him the ashes," Hawking joked.

It was the second talk that really spurred my interest. Hawking and a colleague from CERN, Thomas Hertog, recently declared that the best way to understand how the universe arose was to look at our current cosmic conditions, then work back through "the sum of all histories" to figure out which theory would produce those conditions.

Hawking calls it a "top-down" approach to what he has long considered the biggest cosmic question: What was the initial state of the universe? Did God just create the universe the way it was, and that's it? Or is there a scientific reason for why the cosmos is just so ... why, for instance, it could lead to the conditions for intelligent beings like us?

Hawking's top-down vs. bottom-up approach goes to the heart of the issue covered in his best-known bestseller: "A Brief History of Time." During his Seattle talk, Hawking contended that cosmologists essentially had to look at time in reverse.

If time is a definite dimension like up-down, left-right and forward-back, why does time only move forward? Hawking said the answer to that question might lie in the Second Law of Thermodynamics - the idea that an enclosed system must move from a more ordered to a less ordered state:

"We don't really know how the human brain works. I find women's brains a particular mystery. But it is reasonable to assume that humans remember the same direction of time as computers do. ... We understand how computers work, unlike humans. And one can show that when a computer records an item in its memory, the total amount of disorder goes up. So computers and humans remember the past, and not the future. That is, because of the Second Law, we usually recount history forward.

"We say that later events are caused by earlier events, but not that earlier events happen in order to lead to the later. This 'bottom-up' approach, as I call it, works well in situations in which we can choose the initial state and observe the outcome. But the bottom-up approach does not work in cosmology.

"We do not know what the initial state of the universe was, and we currently can't try out different initial states and see what kinds of universes they would produce."

General relativity alone can't solve the problem, so quantum mechanics has to come into play to figure out what's the likeliest backward history for our universe, Hawking said.

As we've mentioned before, the twists in mathematics that link up general relativity and quantum mechanics seem to imply that we live in an 10- or 11-dimensional universe, perhaps with up to seven dimensions somehow rolled up into immeasurably small loops. The math also implies that there is a virtually immeasurable number of ways that our universe could have developed - nearly driving theoreticians to despair.

Hawking, however, isn't the despairing type: He said physicists should focus just on the scenarios that have three large spatial dimensions, like ours. It may sound like the anthropic principle - that is, the view that the universe is the way it is simply because there would be no intelligent life around to observe it if things were much different. But Hawking preferred to use another term - "the selection principle" - because the selection "doesn't depend on intelligent life."

That's not to say the loop dimensions don't count. Hawking said those other dimensions, which he called "internal space," may well determine the fundamental characteristics of our cosmos, such as the charge of an electron or the nature of subatomic interactions.

So how can physicists work their way backwards and map out that internal space? Strangely enough, Hawking endorsed the same approach favored by Columbia physicist Brian Greene, an earlier speaker in the Seattle lecture series: looking closely at irregularities in the "fingerprint" of the early universe, as seen in the background radiation left behind by the big bang. Those irregularities, which could soon be mapped in greater precision by probes such as the Planck spacecraft, may reveal the imprint of our own internal space.

Hawking said that the universe may represent just one "bubble" in a cosmic froth - perhaps longer-lasting than some other blips. Rather than dwelling so much on how many other unseeable bubbles there could be, Hawking advised concentrating on what makes our bubble the way it is.

"There seems to be a vast landscape of possible 'internal spaces,'" he said, setting up for a final joke. "We live in the anthropically allowed region, in which life is possible. But I think we might have chosen a better location."

I met Hawking at a reception after the talk, and here are some impressions on those smaller questions at the beginning:

  • If you want to get on Hawking's good side, stand to his right. That's the natural direction of his gaze when he's fixed in his wheelchair, and the tiny infrared sensor that he uses for his computerized communication system is mounted on the right temple of his eyeglass frames. For the record, he wore an open-neck, striped dress shirt, brown suit jacket and slacks, and brown suede shoes for Monday's talk. His hands were composed in his lap, and he was attended by two British assistants.
  • The system Hawking uses to compose the phrases for his mechanical voice is often called a "blink-controlled" computer, but I'd call it more of a twitch or a sneer. Not that there's anything wrong with that. He raises his upper lip over his teeth for an instant, and the cursor on his wheelchair-mounted computer screen jumps. First, Hawking highlights a block of words, then a row, then the desired word or letter sequence to add to his sentence. Each twitch of the lip and cheek is acknowledged by a beep of the computer.
  • Long lectures are pre-written, of course, but Hawking controls the delivery of the talk phrase by phrase - pausing for emphasis, applause or laughter.
  • If you ask a question, the response can take a while. Sometimes a short "Yes" will do the trick, but other times you just have to be patient. He has to build up his reply, word by word, then activate his computerized voice to deliver the answer. When one questioner asked Hawking to expound on the possibility that time may be curved in more than one dimension, Hawking took about five minutes to craft two short sentences: "General relativity allows [time] to loop back on itself. However, quantum theory seems to prevent travel into the past."
  • Instead of autographing books, Hawking thumbprints them, with the aid of an assistant and an ink pad. A thumbprint also serves as his signature for letters.
  • Even though Hawking is almost completely paralyzed, there is lots of expressiveness in his eyes and mouth. X Prize founder Peter Diamandis remarked last week about Hawking's smile - and he's right, it's wonderful. He even has a goofy, paternal grin that showed up during Monday's reception when his toddling grandson scampered around his wheelchair. (Yes, Hawking is a proud grandpa, and he's been visiting family during his U.S. tour).
  • If you want to see him smile, just mention his upcoming zero-gravity flight, which serves as a practice run for the outer-space trip Hawking is hoping to take someday aboard Virgin Galactic's SpaceShipTwo. During the warmup to Monday's talk, video from SpaceShipOne's prize-winning flight was shown on the auditorium's big screen - and SpaceShipOne was shown as one of the historical milestones during the talk itself. Is Hawking looking forward to going into weightlessness? One of those smiles was the only answer I needed.

MAIN PAGE

Email this EMAIL THIS

Comments

I was reading this a lot of interest until I read the line "Did God just create the universe the way it was, and that's it?" Why is the writer inserting religion into an article that should be just about science? He lost all credibility in my opinon.

Richard, I included that reference because that's central to the way Hawking has framed the question. I added a hyperlink to a specific Web reference to provide further background on Dr. Hawking and God. Sorry about losing all credibility ... that won't be the first or the last time folks have told me that. I just keep plugging along, and I hope I'll eventually win you back.

By the way, as long as we're on the subject of cosmology in Seattle, I'd be remiss if I didn't pass along this link to a story about John Cramer's endangered experiment in retro-causality, written by my colleague and friend Tom Paulson at the P-I:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18015951/

I've written about Cramer's work as well, and I do hope he'll be able to do the experiment:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15817394/

 

In response to yesterday's column about Hawking, someone expressed concern that such a valuable individual would risk his life on a zero G or suborbital flight. I am glad that Mr. Hawking may get both of those opportunities. It was stated before his lecture last night that Mr. Hawking is no longer able to use his hand to control his computer, and that he now must use his eye. That leads me to wonder how much longer he will be with us. If someone who has contributed so much to science gets the opportunity to experience weightlessness for 25 seconds at a time, and possibly for a few minutes with spectacular view at a later date, then that is fantastic. And considering his inability to do physical things that most of us take for granted, how fitting that he would get to experience physical sensations most of us can only dream of.
Thank you for the article. It was extremely interesting to me.

About a year or so ago, I thought of the bubble filled with smoke scenario when trying to figure out why the universe is expanding at an ever increasing rate. What if, for whatever reason, a bubble (not of air, but maybe of time) was formed at the bottom of an extremely deep entity, and contained some energy and/or matter? The bubble would be drawn in the direction of the least resistance. As the resistance decreased, even just a little, the bubble would expand. This would pull and swirl everything inside the bubble without being aware of the larger motion since there are no visible or tangible reference points as the bubble grows and grows, heading for an ever more path of least resistance.

Oh well, just a thought.

Thanks again for the article. It was very nicely done.

Just holler if you get time and let me know what you think.

Just a thought.
Needless to say, reading: "That's not to say the loop dimensions don't count. Hawking said those other dimensions, which he called "internal space," may well determine the fundamental characteristics of our cosmos, such as the charge of an electron or the nature of subatomic interactions."
...was just too cool! I'm not sure he's quite saying what I've been trying to argue and reason out, but it sure is close.  The properties of magnetism and the forces of the atom could be just the physical "effect" of the 4th and 5th "physical" dimensions that are working to broaden out a singular one-dimensional essence that we are all inflated around.

P.S. I loved hearing all the details of how he talks!  I guess I just thought he had a microphone up against his neck.
Why such a fuss over God? Concentrate on the article as a whole, not one sentence that may have a word in it that you do not like. I just don't understand..
John, the bubble universe concept is interesting on a couple of counts.

It meshes with Hawking's "no-boundary" concept of time ... that the "beginning" of the universe is like any other point in the space-time continuum, just like the South Pole. To ask what happened before the universe began is like asking what's south of the South Pole. There is no sense of "before" before the beginning.

It also meshes with the idea that there are multiple universes out there, bubbles of different sizes and shapes. Some bubbles are a small blip, others are stable enough to allow for the emergence of stars, galaxies and eventually life.

The interesting thing is that if you wrap all this together, "time" is just the movement through a dimension on the surface of this extradimensional "globe." Continuing this metaphor, all moments in the universe's history exist as different latitudes on the globe, from the singularity at 90 degrees north to the singularity at 90 degrees south. Our brains are just constructed to move through the latitudes at a particular rate. That's what Hawking was referring to when he talked about the way human brains and computer brains work.

If you permit me to add a reference to God ... under this scheme, God might have created the whole universe of a piece, as a quantum construct in multiple dimensions. The passage of time is the movement through that construct on its surface, but if we could look at it from "above" ... if our eyes worked in 10 dimensions ... we might see all of the past and future of the universe spread before us (in a fuzzy quantum way, of course). Now that's a "God's eye" view. (I can imagine that Chris E.'s ears are perking up right about now.)
Alan,

I appreciate your literate reply. It was truly thought out in a short time span. No pun intended...

I definitely agree there might be many fish, (bubbles) swimming in the same "ocean" and some are expanding while others are going nowhere.

I guess it all comes down to where we are all headed. I for one will not comment on if there is a supreme being involved, but there sure seems to be to others that focus on that.
It's amazing that Quran also talks about multiple universes and the book came down 1400 years ago. The very first verse of the Quran says 'Praise be to God, Lord of all the universes.
Wonderful articles.. have to comment on "The passage of time is the movement through that construct on its surface, but if we could look at it from "above" ... if our eyes worked in 10 dimensions ... we might see all of the past and future of the universe spread before us (in a fuzzy quantum way, of course). Now that's a "God's eye" view." I think that time and the way it works was presented in just this way in Richard Bach's book "One".Some may say that the book is entirely too spiritual but it really makes a person thing about time and space and our place in it on multiple levels.
Oh... I'm listening!  This is a completely new and different way for me to look at time so I think it's going to have to sink in a bit.  I do absolutely love the South Pole analogy and John Reeder’s description of how a bubble universe would expand as it followed the path of least resistance was just too cool as well!  

Along the line of time’s direction, my somewhat limited Native American teaching was handed down from an Apache elder whose driven purpose or vision in life was to find the interconnectedness between religions.  In Tom Brown's books about him, time is something rather easily transgressed, both forward and back, through visions and through ‘clear mind’ meditation.  Human consciousness (which is said to hold the seed of god in everyone) is indeed an amazing thing.  How would three-dimensional matter become “self-aware” without the perspective of another dimension or two?  Consciousness is our connection with the very universe that surrounds us and can indeed connect with these other realms, even if our bodies cannot.  
Readers might like to know that things mentioned in Alan report like "an almost infinite number of bubble universes, 6/7 extra loop dimensions, anthropic principle, landscape of internal spaces", are all part of the conjectures of string theory. There are absolutely no physical hints of the existence of these objects. They came from mathematical deductions based on pure speculation that of all things in the universe are made from strings and 'branes'. String theory, however, is considered in deep trouble because of its 100% speculative nature, its inability to be formulated as a scientific theory despite heroic attempts to do so, and its complete failure to make any new scientific predictions. Which is one reason why many string theorists continue to talk about God and metaphysical speculations on how the universe began. Readers is well advised to treat these fantastic features of string theory as no more than science fiction.
My thought on time moving forward and never backward, is much like standing in one place:

If you take a step to the left, you're moving away from your originating spot. Now, if you take a step to the right, sure, you're moving to the originating "spot" where you started, but it's not considered moving "back" to the beginning. Instead, this is now a "new" spot, one step beyond the left spot. The previous spot is much like spent energy. It's no longer the same. If you go back to the originating "spot", it's the same location, but not the same spot. It becomes a new spot. Think of it like recycling paper. An original sheet is created, spent, then recycled into a new sheet of paper. While the new sheet of paper looks and works just like the original sheet, it's not the same.

Just my thought. That's all. What's more important, is that Stephen Hawking rules!
Slightly off Topic, but here it goes... I am a big fan of Hawking, since reading the "Brief History of Time" (maybe it's not an accurate translation from the book's title in Spanish, but that's my better guess) Personally I find Hawking's theories fascinating and I´m always interested in reading articles writen by, or about, him. Anyways, I recently got into an argument over the value of Hawking's contribution to modern physics and cosmology. My opinion is that he has enormously contributed to the advancement of science through his ideas, but I found a lot of people in my surrounding think more of him as someone who has helped with divulging the current state of what is known about the universe rather than a contributor to it... where would you place him on that regard?

Thank you.
Alan, Great article, in fact I think it's one of your better efforts. I get a kick out of the reaction you get by using the word god. I have to consider myself an agnostic. Although I certainly don't believe in the Santa Claus like fairy tales most religions tell, not knowing exactly how this universe began, I can't rule out the possibility that in the billions of years we have left in this one, some culture somewhere in this universe could acumulate the knowledge and technology to create another. And of course, that could have happened before.
Just had to add...

What do science, religion and a beautiful woman (man) all have in common?

Worshipping any of them can lead to blindness.
Greetings,....in relation to the ying vs. yang debate centered around Hawking (divulging in Layman's terms what is known) vs. scientific contributions, he probably deserves a prize equally for both. Plus, no one in the World before him ever discovered Black Hole Thermodynamics, (the fact that black holes emit particles and themselves eventually evaporate into space, poof, etc.)....anyway, hoping most "think tank" folk are not simply envious of his work. I really do not understand this debate, but 'tis just I. Kind thanks.
I think John Cramer and Stephen are talking apples and oranges in regards to the direction of time. If the matter and light we are made of bubbles up from lower dimensions, then it is easier for individual photons and electrons to affect each other 'instantaneously' or even from the future because they are further down in a simpler the fabric or dimension of space. Out here, on the macro level, it’s almost like being on the outside looking in. Our progression is linear much as the shockwave from an explosion can only travel outward. If I were Cramer, I’d seek funding from some magazines or the Science channel or something. They are always looking for that “unique” take on a given theory and perhaps are even guilty of over emphasizing not quite fully accepted theories (dinosaurs, snowball earth etc).
Re: Richard G.'s post, When Einstein said, "God doesn't play dice with the universe", there was no one that doubted his credibility. But nowadays, it seems that a number of anti-religious zealots have decreed that God's name be banned practically everywhere. This practice has to stop. We must not lose our perspective, as they obviously have. Scientists can be either believers (Einstein) or non-believers (Carl Sagan), or a boy named Sue, but they'll still achieve the same results. Actually, we need to REGAIN our perspective.
Question is about gravity and blackhole; at the end of post.

Gravity is defined as a constant. It does not vary but remains the same throughout the universe even in a black hole.

A blackhole is created when enough mass has been acquired to cause gravity to prevent material from escaping from the object's gravity field. This the critical mass required to create a blackhole. Not until this critical mass is meet will a blackhole be created.

If as Dr. Hawking states: Hawking has gone back and forth about what happens to the things that are sucked into a black hole. At one time, he held that the "information" falling into the black hole is lost forever, but recently he has said that the contents of a black hole would leak out in the form of "Hawking radiation," until the black hole itself dissipates.

How is gravity then keeping the blackhole active if the energy of the blackhole leaks out. The mass of the blackhole at some point must drop below the critical mass for the creation of blackhole. Why does not the blackhole then revert to normal objects (a rebirth)?

Gravity which created the blackhole has to be the same when the blackhole's mass again drops to below critical mass.

The problem is that for gravity to maintain the blackhole after the blackhole's mass has dropped below this critical mass threshold, then gravity must be exserting the same gravity force it was that was required to create the blackhole in the first place.

That means Gravity and the force it exerts is no longer a constant but has changed to a variable force.

How is this explained? Either Gravity is a constant and the blackhole stops existing and the mass is rebirthed as objects or Gravity is changed once a blackhole is created and becomes a variable force and in not constant any longer.
My interest in the sky began with Carl Sagan as a young adult and then to Hawking ~  still fascinated by the unknown and its possiblities.  Thank you for this article on Hawking and his lectures; can't wait for the next one.
Time is to be contemplated by man because it is and invention of man. The universe has no relevance to or of time as we understand it. If one is a believer in things greater than self than GOD must enter the equation of the unknown realm of thought and contemplation of things known and unknown. Pure sciences for sciences sake is a path down a closed mine. To many people young and old have a problem with the concept that there may be a power far greater than anything currently known or understood by mankind. The harder man tries to disprove its existence the more it becomes true, interesting.
Alan Boyle contradicts himself in the following passages, in which he says:

"The "beginning" of the universe is like any other point in the space-time continuum, just like the South Pole. To ask what happened before the universe began is like asking what's south of the South Pole. There is no sense of "before" before the beginning."

and

"Under this scheme, God might have created the whole universe of a piece, as a quantum construct in multiple dimensions."

In the first passage, Boyle says that asking what happened before the universe began is like asking what's south of the south pole.  In the second, he goes on to speculate what happened before the universe began, i.e., south of the south pole.  

If you accept the view of the universe propounded in the first passage, I think you have to abandon ideas of the universe as created or caused, because those are temporal ideas requiring both a "before" and an "after."  

If time is part of the fabric of the universe and originated in the same singularity, then the sentence "God created the universe" is not intelligible.  It is like saying, "Just south of the south pole there is a rock."

If my logic is mistaken I would like to understand where I have erred.
The word God doesn't bother me so much except that there's never been any proof of any supreme being anywhere at any time.  It's just a word we fall back on when we run across something we can't understand. If it ever gets to the point where we know for a fact that there is a God involved, I would be willing to give him credit. I'm not waiting for that proof to emerge.  I don't think it ever will.

I agree that the use of that word adds nothing to the discussion and seems awkward in this context.  But, if you're talking to the general public, I guess it might be easier for them to accept the information with the word God thrown in. It could also be interpreted as dumbing down.  I don't think we should do that if the point is education.
Just me 2 cents on the phrase: "Did God just create the universe".... why can't science and religion just get along. Religion has never defined *how* God created the Universe; I like to think it was through the big bang. Same thing with people, animals, plants, moons, etc.... A day is not truly defined by religion as a 24 hour period of time.
"If you permit me to add a reference to God ... under this scheme, God might have created the whole universe of a piece, as a quantum construct in multiple dimensions. The passage of time is the movement through that construct on its surface, but if we could look at it from "above" ... if our eyes worked in 10 dimensions ... we might see all of the past and future of the universe spread before us (in a fuzzy quantum way, of course). Now that's a "God's eye" view" God's eye view is an absolutley beautiful concept and a great argument stating the universe was infact created, and all possible outcomes could infact coexist in a froth of universes. God is defined as "To which there is no greater." If thats true, could it be as simple as blowing bubbles in chocolate milk?
Observing the expanding universe it would seem to me to be akin to observing an endless atomic explosion. The billowing fireball appears to be composed of innumerable cells of raging chaotic energy each racing away from the event.
Guzman Rebut.- Why can't scientists believe in God? There are quite a few that admit that the way things are, are unexplainable and too perfect. But I am sure that one of the Earth's leading cosmologists is losing sleep at night because, "he lost all credibility" with Roberto Guzman.
Geeze...Has Dr Cramer gotten his $20K yet? Seems that a professor at UW will be able to come up with that kind of money on his credit cards and they pay it back when he wins the Nobel Prize...or uses his new understanding to break the bank in Vegas. Or maybe he could ask millionaire cartoon strip creator Scott Adams of Dilbert fame. He recently interpreted a Newsweek article on recent impacts technological impacts on reading the fossil record and came away with the belief that scientists are all wrong...and cites reverse causality to prove it...he's something of a pointy haired type of thinker on this. But what's $20K to him? A day's worth of proceeds from the sale of Dilbert calendars ought to do it. And then we'd have our answer.  
Bernardo,

Hawking's contribution to cosmology physics is very major, especially in his earlier years. His pushed the frontier of physics by directly analyzing black holes at a time when few has any clues on these most strange of celestial objects. He discovered certain fundamental properties of black holes that stand to this day, and which become a litmus test of any new proposal of fundamental physics. He has published many scientific papers and is very well-respected by the scientific community for his deep insights and technical/mathematical ability.

Although handicapped, he has written a couple of popular books and has a natural ability to connect to the public.
I have been a fan of Dr. Hawking for many years -- more about his way of thinking than some of his conclusions.  A what if question:  Suppose our "fundamental truth" that the speed of light is constant.  What if the velocity of light varies on a cosmic scale?  If this were the case, then our concept of space distances and space/time are incorrect.
It is interesting to note, from broad observations of the public, and supported by this thread, that in today's America there is a major shift into Middle Age fundamentalist Christian belief of the Christian God as the explainer of all things from the creation of the universe, of man, to why you need to brush your teeth.

If one believe in God as the ultimate creator, in control of everything, do anything, yet beyond human comprehension, then fine. There is no need to pursue knowledge. One can return to Middle Age Europe, before modern science, and enjoy a religious life. (But try not to start any more religious wars.)

Since Newton, however, it has been confirmed that the universe can be understood rationally, logically, mathematically, precisely, reliably, without invoking beliefs or faith of any religion. Such understanding is very difficult, takes time and a great deal of intellect. But they are correct and the modern world is built from this incredible body of scientific knowledge. That's why thousands of universities in the world offer advanced education in the sciences.

The work of scientists is to engage in further discovery and understanding, which must be verified by experiments, and who must be prepared to abandon a proposal if it is not verified. That is, scientists do not engage in dogma, faith, revealed 'truth', proclamation by churches, and absolute knowledge, in doing their work.

It is tragic that America, a leader in science, is on a path towards the 10th century. Perhaps this is the result of a generation of younger people so poorly educated in basic sciences, rational thinking, philosophy, simple math, that all they can do is to engage in repeating the thinking of 10th century monks.
I have read Dr. Hawking's books and many articles by or about him. Two points regarding his anticipated venture into space: First, as a person also permanently situated in a wheelchair, I can tell you that gravity is our enemy #1. Second, in his mind Dr. Hawking has lived in space for most of his life. How fitting that he should finally have the opportunity to visit the "workplace". Godspeed, Dr. Hawking. (oops!)
I always think it is interesting how scientists- who are by nature "open to possibility" are so often not open to the possibility of God... but, in fact, sometimes angered by the concept. Most of us who believe find belief opening, freeing- not constricting- and many of us are, ourselves, scientists- or have made our living in science- related fields. But, I realize, it is all so individual. Here's to rest and peace for us all- where "God" resides... and somewhere in all of this we find our "one-ness" with each other- because it IS there.
To said:

"Readers might like to know that things mentioned in Alan report like "an almost infinite number of bubble universes, 6/7 extra loop dimensions, anthropic principle, landscape of internal spaces", are all part of the conjectures of string theory."

I might agree with most of this, but the anthropic principle did not originate with string theory and the "variant" that stringers use isn't even a structure principle, it's just a selection effect.
If something like a God did make all this we are still left with the earth. This God appears cruel on some level assembling an earth that supports us and so much else but yet apparently ending it there...or here. Just tossed into a spectacular universe (onto a spectacular world) we may never understand or know. I sure would like to know what Dr. Hawking supposes happened between Venus and Mars.
Whether or not we are able to name "God" as the creator of all things, the problem remains that we do not know how this all began.  This is what we are trying to figure out.  And this is exactly the problem we face--the problem of time.  How can time begin, when it is supposed to be eternal?

I must disagree with Alan Boyle's analogy that looking for the beginning of time is like looking for something South of the South Pole.  Time is not like latitude.  The South Pole represents a point that is 90 degrees, not from the equator, but from the center of the earth.  Looked at in this fashion, any point on the earth is also 90 degrees from the center.  The South Pole is arbitrary when thinking about it as a mathematical "place" on the earth's surface.  If the movement of time was like movement toward the South Pole, you would have to start from the analogous equivalent of the center of the earth, and measure  infinitely only one direction.  A better analogy would be to see the earth as a Magnet, and the South Pole as one of the charged ends.  To find the beginning of time would be like finding where magnetism begins in a magnet.  Yet we cannot do this.  All we can say is that under a certain set of circumstances, specific elements (iron) obtain "spin" which for some reason attracts uncharged and oppositely charged particles of the same element. Why we do not observe this same phenomenon in water, wood, or even aluminum is as much a mystery to us as the arrow of time.  The charge is stronger as we get closer to the origin, not constant like time.  And in the dead center, there is no charge at all.    

I happen to disagree with Hawking on "bubbles."  This and string theory require multiple dimensions with divergent possible timestreams, which means that all reality is volatile and could be changed in an instant (like in Back to the Future when Marty almost destroys his own existence when his mom falls for him instead of his father.) I would love to see if John Cramer's ideas prove true.  If possible, I would like to find a way to contribute to his experiment, although I can foresee some likely flaws with it as well.  (e.g. just because two entangled photons are 50 microseconds apart doesn't mean they aren't still "entangled," and therefore linked.  Proving that the particles behave differently may only reveal that there is a greater mystery to space--not that time travel is possible.)
Two comments: to the gentleman who is concerned about gravity 'as a constant', there is a gravitational constant that relates mass and potential energy that is indeed a constant throughout the known universe - but the force of gravity varies with distance and the magnitude of the masses involved.  That's Newton.  

On God and cosmology: a few years back, an interesting gentleman named Frank Tipler came up with a theory that tried to address the nature of God in physics.  Independent of the merit of his contributions, there was an incredibly important statement made about his work: for four centuries, scientists and theologians have refused to acknowledge each others' existence, and it's time to grow up.  At the foundation of Tipler's theory was this argument: the concept of "God" is scientifically significant.  If you can prove "God" does not exist - or in the alternative, is irrelevant to physical law - all well and good.  But can you?  And if not, does not "God" persist as a hypothesis to explain some or all of physical law?  The unsupported statement "there is no God" is as arrogant as phlogiston, and the naivety of claiming that "God" is the answer to everything including how to raise your children and where you left your car keys is touching but irrelevant to discussions such as these.  Have you tasted a quark lately?  Is a quark more or less real than "God"?  I do not endorse answering the questions of physics by saying, "And God said...."  But I do not understand the vehemence with which some people summarily reject this hypothesis, offering not a shred of proof for the NON-existence of "God".  
Self-contradiction 

 How often we all are self-contradictory and, probably, many get some satisfaction by pointing out the self-contradictions of others. We, oftentimes, create strawmen in others efforts to explain or justify their ideas in an attempt to destroy them and their ideas. Our democracy is in danger of being subverted by politicians and media who use this "strawman destruction" of their opponents to show their own claimed superiority. All this subterfuge makes it very difficult for voters etc. to see through to the important points that the politicians, media etc. are keeping us from knowing or seeing. In Alan's statements herein one may see and there may even be actual self-contradicions, but we gain more by trying to see the importance of the attempted points even in the presence of what we may see as self-contradictions. For example (not the best) should a blind person ignore or worry about the self-contradiction (from his/her point of view) of someone who yells "Look; your about to be run over by a car!"? 

 Science and Philosophy (or any other human endeavor) may seem to contradict each other; yet, there need not be any real self-contradiction when one realizes they are discussing different areas of human interest. If one takes some philosophical or religious expression as scientific (or vice versa) then a self-contradiction may be seen or claimed (strawman created) when the expression maker assumed it would not be so taken (thought hearers would be able to distinguish when speaking as scientist from when speaking as a philosopher). Politicians and the media just love to take advantage of such assumptions on the part of their opponents, especially when they know that the public will not know of or imagine the assumption. 

 Science cannot tell us about all areas of human concern and there are human interests that are outside the realm of science. When Dr. Hawking uses the word "God", he assumes people will know that he is not speaking in the area of physics but still in an area of human interest.

Most of us can thank Alan for not limiting his columns and comments to science only. Most of us have wider interests. Just look at the comments he is getting here.
 Finally, accepted logic shows that the statement "There is nothing absolute." (or the logically equivalent, "Everything is relative.") is self-contradictory in all areas of human endeavor and, therefore, destroys the credibility of ideas or theories that invoke or rely on it. Science as well as philosophy, religion, etc. can have absolutes.

Here are some absolutes of physics (science).

(1) Nothing with mass (weight) when at rest can ever attain a speed equal to the maximum speed of light.

(2)If you take a round trip to a distant galaxy, you will be younger, on remeeting, than those who stayed at rest at departure point of your trip. (Precision clocks have been sent around the world and found to be behind the time elapsed on such clocks left at home. The time difference is only nanoseconds, due to shortness of trip and smallness of jet speeds compared to the maximum speed of light, hence need for"precision clocks".)

(3) The age of the observable physical universe is the same for all observers in said universe (No relativity of time here). 
   

In answer to someone's (who did not give their name) comment "If one believe(s) in God as the ultimate creator, in control of everything, do anything, yet beyond human comprehension, then fine. There is no need to pursue knowledge." What an ignorant conclusion to make. The pursuit of knowledge is a deep rooted part of mankind to understand the world around them and beyond. The pursuit of knowledge will never be stopped. It was stated by a scientist no less, that science in and of itself by nature is a religion. Ponder that, good neighbor. The problem with scientists today is that they willfully ignore with extreme prejudice the very thought and topic of God as something real to investigate scientifically.  That is the first tenet of their religion.

More and more freqently headlines cry "New Scientific Discovery refutes previous accepted findings and theories." Back to the drawing board, and start rethinking what we have extrapolated from the previously erroneous accepted findings and theories. The more they find, the more they realize they never really knew what they knew. As for the statement that God will never be proved. Oh yes, he will. When he stands before us in the flesh and gathers the elect (who never doubted for an instance) well, then I guess the scientists will sigh and say oh well, back to the drawing board. Time to rethink again.

Dear Alan:

This is a great article describing the current Cosmic Conundrum, which demonstrates that the existing mainstream physics and cosmology theories can predict only 4% of the universe in the form of the visible matter rest 96% is unknown dark energy and dark matter. Also, the current theories are marred with a myriad of their own unresolved paradoxes and invalidated artifacts such as the multiple universes, multiple dimensions, black holes, quantum gravity, super-luminous inflation, observer’s paradox etc.

All these point to the possibility of some very significant missing physics or phenomena from the current theories. My research over the past six years has shown that this missing physics is the physics of the well-recognized phenomenon of the spontaneous decay of particles. Integrating this phenomenon into the general relativity, without introducing any changes to the original formulation of the general relativity theory, leads to the missing equation that resolves many of the paradoxes of the Cosmic Conundrum mentioned above.

The dilemma is that the mainstream scientists are not open to consider this proposed idea since the gatekeeper editors of the physics journals would not even entertain a paper for review unless it is built upon the current formulations of the mainstream theories that are already failing in a big way leading to the Cosmic Conundrum in the first place. This is a catch 22 for the mainstream science inhibiting any progress in resolving the very paradoxes that are its own artifacts.

That is where the role of the media and people like you becomes extremely important since you are conversant to the issues and open to all new ideas from people outside the box of the mainstream biases.

I am e-mailing you separately a paper entitled – “Enhanced Friedmann Model with Relativistic Effects Solves the Cosmic Conundrum” that was recently submitted to a physics journal but not accepted by the editor for even a technical review citing the very discriminatory argument of non-conformance to the current mainstream theories.
In reading the text of Mr. Hawking's presentation, I find it very interesting that he poses a very simple and direct question concerning the creation of the universe.  Either it was created by God, or only through science can we find out how we came into being. I have a similar question, do we have a purpose for being or are we a mistake of nature?  I say mistake because for something to come from nothing doesn't make sense when applied to scientific reasoning.  Outside of the theory of evolution and the Big Bang theory, name one other example (that is not a theory or hypothesis, but true hard fact) of something developing into a more complex form all on its own.  

On the subject of time, man didn't create time, however man is continually striving to define time.  And I find it's interesting that the concept of eternity is now being embraced by the scientific community in order to justify the Big Bang theory.  It's been a main premise of most religions for some time now.  

Hawking is a man in pursuit of an answer.  Where his intellect and scientific understanding will lead him is anybody's guess.  And whether he dies during his upcoming flight or several years from now, eventually he'll find the answers he's looking for.
I am also quite annoyed at all the "god" talk. Could you please offer conclusive, rational, logical, empirical evidence that any "god" exists or existed? Have you not read any ancient mythologies of ancient civilizations that worshipped, had faith in, erected temples to, created holy/sacred sites, rituals, and holy days to any number of gods/goddesses/demi-gods/spiritual beings? Where are the goddesses Venus, Aphrodite, Oestre, etc.? Where are the gods Apollo, Zeus, Thor, Re, Aten, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, etc ? 

 There simply isn't any "god" at all. You are totally so egocentric "believing" that you are so vitally important that any deity would even give you a picosecond of thought.
Yes, you, we all, are unique, one-of-a-kind individuals not to be duplicated anywhere at anytime. Because we were all created by a reproductive biological act of our biological parents (or in vitro transplants) but death is the end of our existence.

"God" is our creation, too--an imaginary, make-believe, fantasy deity. Do you also have faith in tooth fairies, too? 

 In the 13.7 billion light year radius of our spherical volumed Universe, exactly where is the imaginary "kingdom of god"?    
Sorry Carlos, but Einstein was an atheist. When he used the word God, he was using it as a euphemism for nature or the universe itself. He did not believe in a personal god, such as in the Christian, Jewish, and Islamic religions. Look it up, it's well documented on the web.
Dear Alan:

This is a follow on to my earlier post (April 12, 1:18 PM ). This attempts to answer some of the questions raised by Steven Hawking and others based on the model I described earlier that integrates general relativity with the spontaneous decay of particles.

Hawking’s biggest cosmic questions are: What was the initial state of the universe? Did God just create the universe the way it was, and that's it?....... During his Seattle talk, Hawking contended that cosmologists essentially had to look at time in reverse….. why does time only move forward?

The answer to these questions is that time is only a relative entity and there is no one single clock in the universe which read zero time at any time. An absolute zero time is irrelevant as far as the whole universe is concerned. The majority of the universe energy resides in the form of particles such as photons and others that move at speed of light. For all these particles the time, according to the relativity theory, has fully dilated meaning no moving clock. Hence, the majority (96%) of the universe other than the visible matter (4%) has no time or clock as well as space (distances also dilate to zero at the speed of light). Hence, the majority (96%) of the universe is eternal and omnipresent meaning it never got created nor will it ever end.

Time, creation and evolution then remain a question only for an observer situated in the frame of the reference of the matter (4%). And even in this frame of reference, time is not an absolute entity and may exist as a continuum extending to an infinitely smaller and smaller value that is always infinitely larger than the number zero. Hence, the time zero or the so-called time of creation may be an irrelevant or invalid concept unsupportable by scientific arguments. Moreover, the existing Big Bang singularity at time zero does not support the existence of time zero.

In addition, the paper - “Enhanced Friedmann Model with Relativistic Effects Solves the Cosmic Conundrum” that I sent to you describes how the integrated model of spontaneous decay and general relativity resolves many of the existing unresolved paradoxes such as the multiple universes, multiple dimensions, black holes, quantum gravity, super-luminous inflation, observer’s paradox etc. and simultaneously predict the observed behavior of the universe including the accelerated expansion of the universe, microwave background radiation, and formation of matter (creation) etc.

Avtar Singh
avsingh@alum.mit.edu
Hi There, Marcos,

Nothing on the web (searches) is well documented. I got my information from a PBS program on Einstein. He also said, when writing to a colleague, (or maybe it was his wife) that he thought it was ironic, that having been an iconoclast all his life, God had made him an icon.
Not to take away from anyone's hopes or ideas, but I wish that people would get their science right before throwing out concepts as if they were fact.  For Avtar from California, I want to point out that "distance" becomes infinite as you approach the speed of light, not zero. Look at the E=mc2 equation and see that distance sits in the numerator (Energy, measured in joules, is kg*m^2/s^2) showing that mass and distance increase while time decreases.  This is what Einstein bases his theory on, so unless you are using a different theory, distance increases.  

For Carlton from Hawaii, I will note that your "absolutes" of science are all in doubt, and hardly provable.  

1) The idea that nothing with mass can move at the speed of light is only believed because nothing is observed to do so.  This is one of the big reasons people believe time travel will never be possible for us.  Perhaps we could project an image of ourselves back into time, but not a real person (like in Deja Vu, a movie that Alan Boyle wrote an article about.)  Yet there are many elementary particles with mass that are observed to move *near* the speed of light.  With particles popping into and out of existence, as suggested in string theory, and with enough experimentation, we might actually find a way to break the light barrier.  

2) If you take a trip to a distant galaxy...you will *not* be younger upon your return.  You will most certainly get older at the same rate as everyone else.  However, if you travel at or near the speed of light, time will (according to relativity) move slower for you than people who did not move as fast.  The jury is still out on relativity, however.  Consider this question with respect to the clocks you spoke of:  One clock is on the airplane, the other is on the earth.  Relative to one another, both clocks are always moving at the same speed (remember, all motion is relative!)  So, why should the times be different?  Is it possible that motion is actually "absolute" whereas nothing else in the universe is?  There are many competing theories that can be used to explain why the clocks differ.  Until those are ruled out, the idea of time dilation is still up for debate.

3) Regarding the age of the universe, how can we say this is true when we have never been off this planet, out of this solar system, or in a significantly different part of the universe?  Does the universe look the same from within the gravitational pull of a black hole?  

To suggest that any of these things are "absolute" only sets you up to be proven wrong in the future.
Dear Alan,

Prof.Hawking's lecture is a lot of interest without losing his credibility.He poses a question concerning the creation of the Universe with a reference to God.
I certainly believe that when he used the word God, he was using it as a very difficult problem also for a world- famous cosmologist.The biggest problem is the time's arrow.Why does time only move forward?

Hawking said:The Second Law of Thermodynamics but also said: Cosmologists essentially had to look at time in reverse.Maybe in the future Prof.Hawking
or other intelligent human brain will give the answer.

In my opinion, Prof.Hawking has enormously contributed to the advancement of modern Physics and Cosmology through his ideas. 

  Thank you
Prof.Demetrios D.Dionysiou  
For Chet of Massachusetts and others. Chet, you have given an example of the strawgod ("strawman") many in our generation seem so predisposed to use. You have required, for your belief it seems, things that are self-contradictory or you seem to have designed to prove your claims. A mature (present knowledge and understanding) concept of God does not need to have have your self-created difficulties and the inconsistencies or incongruities you seem to want. Current human knowledge has progressed to the point where it is clear that a valid concept of God must go beyond science and the material world and most likely into the world of the infinite. Human knowledge, after mathematician Georg Cantor, included the concept of infinite things. Science agrees that it deals with finite things and is at a complete loss when things go infinite. If one only looks at or adheres to science, then there is nothing infinite (hence, for many scientists there is no God). Mathematics has brought knowledge of the infinite to humans in a unique way. Infinite things exist in the realm of mathematics. Humans, therefore, may choose to have their definition of their God be in terms of (nonscientific but mathermatical) concepts of infinity or infinite things. Again, such things are outside of science but not mathematics. The infinite things of mathematics seem to contradict the finite concepts of science, but this seeming contradiction is not actual; it is only due to our unfimilarity with the vastly different behavior of infinite things. For a simple example, we all know that the even counting numbers are infinite (go on forever, forever infinitude) and likewise for the odd counting numbers. Where our nearly exclusive experience with finite things causes us to feel that the infinitude of all (even and odd combined) the counting numbers must be twice that of either evens or odds alone, this finite bias (common sense) leads us astray; it's wrong, because the combined infinitude is actually no greater than the individual infinitudes (forever infinitude). Infinity plus infinity - infinity, not 2 times infinity. Knowledge of the rational numbers allows humans to see that infinity multiplied by infinity is no greater than either of the infinite factors in the product. Our finite (scientific?) bias screams because 9 times 9 is 81, not 9, and, as numbers get larger (90 times 90 is 8100, not 90), the difference (discrepency) becomes ever worse. 

 Human knowledge of the irrational numbers allows us to find an infinity (the infinitude of the continuum) which is larger than the forever infinitude (one could imagine that this larger infinitude is so large that it has the power to make something from nothing analogous to the way it makes a continuum from something discrete). 

 Cantor showed us that there is a hierarchy (that goes on forever) of infinitudes with each one larger than its predecessor; there is a forever infinity of infinitudes. Cantor also showed us that there is something "larger" than the infinitude of the infinitudes and called it "The ABSOLUTE". All this probably drives some scientists crazy, but mathematicians enjoy it. It may seem interesting to some readers to remember that the mathematics of quantum physics and general relativity were well known by mathematicians (long before either physical theory had been proposed) and appropriated by physicists to explian the finite world and to understand it better. It could turn out that the mathematics of infinity might help humans to better understand "worlds" (areas) outside of the physical, finite world (area). 

 Some may wish to deny the existence of infinite things, but they may be being misled by their finite bias or limited knowledge, if not simply playing the ostrich with the-head-in-the-sand role. However, those who believe individuals have the right to their own chershed thoughts, concepts, and feelings should understand how those with kowledge or experience of infinite things might be able to justify or  defend their positions. We can point out the self-contradiction in the claim "There is nothing absolute." and, therefore, be justified in rejecting conclusions drawn from it, but there is no self-contradiction in the claim "There is something infinite.". Those who wish to associate the word God with something absolute or something infinite ought to be allowed to and find understanding for their association, just as those who have their reasons to disagree or don't like the association deserve similar consideration, as long as they avoid self-contradictions and strawman creations. 

 Hope I have no strawmen or self-contradictions herein. Don't have time to check.
Dear Spooky Action at a Distance:

As per equations of specific relativity theory, both space (distance or length of rods contract) and time dilate to zero as velocity approaches the speed of light. You are right about mass increasing with the speed of light.


SEND A COMMENT

PLEASE READ: All comments must be approved before appearing in the thread; time and space constraints prevent all comments from appearing. We will only approve comments that are directly related to the blog, use appropriate language and are not attacking the comments of others.

Message (please, no HTML tags. Web addresses will be hyperlinked):

TRACKBACKS

Trackbacks are links to weblogs that reference this post. Like comments, trackbacks do not appear until approved by us. The trackback URL for this post is: http://cosmiclog.msnbc.msn.com/trackback.aspx?PostID=129538

Latest Tech & Science News

Syndicate This Site

Add Cosmic Log to your news reader:
live.com xml
myyahoo msn
bloglines newsgator
google